City to city learning and knowledge exchange for climate resilience in southern Africa

used by HCC in a bid to curb criminality and disease. Over the years, approaches to deal with informal settlements have also included formalization of informal settlements such as the famous Epworth and Churu Farm in Harare, coupled with building initiatives such as Opera- tion Garikayi/Hlalani Kuhle (Operation "Better Living"), which consists of building concrete housing. These efforts have led to limited informal settlements in Harare and the urban areas of Zimbabwe. A positive development was noted in that there are deliberate efforts to formal- ize informal settlements in the city of Windhoek. Energy issues. Currently, the Electricity Centre Board (ECB), regulates electricity distrib- utors in Windhoek and other regions and there is some co-dependence in terms of energy sup- ply to the city (Table 3). The major power plant is in the North of the country as well as the conflicts with Botswana over the use of the Okavango for water and energy supply. CoW buys energy from NamPower and supplies electricity to the residents directly whilst this is done at national level by South Africa (Eskom), Zambia (ZESCO) and in Zimbabwe through ZEDC, a subsidiary company of the Zimbabwe Electricity Supply Association (ZESA). ZEDC is solely City learning in southern Africa PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227915 January 24, 2020 14 / 25

responsible for energy supply and regulation of rates in Harare and Zimbabwe from the main grid. South Africa is ranked 114th out of 115 nations in its readiness for an energy transition away from fossil fuels [70], and yet addressing climate issues and associated problems in the region is closely related to tackling southern Africa’s dependence on coal. Climate change poses a looming power threat to hydropower, with changing rainfall, temperature and evapo- ration in watersheds such as the Zambezi (where countries such as Zimbabwe, Zambia and other southern African countries and subsequent cities draw hydropower from) have potential impacts on hydropower production. Power rationing programs have been implemented across the region, including in South African and Zimbabwean cities. Lusaka and Harare have a com- mon energy production and supply resource having a 45:55% power sharing between Zambia and Zimbabwe respectively from Kariba hydropower stations that are along the Zambezi River, but Zambia also draws hydropower along the Kafue River. Water governance. The CoW provides an admirable example of how partnerships—in this case, a public-private-partnership (PPP) has worked in favour of the city. Windhoek is the only city among the four, which reclaims domestic wastewater to potable drinking water stan- dards at the Goreangab Water Reclamation plant, which was one of the sites visited under the city exchanges. The reclamation process began operations in 1968, when the plant was built by the CoW to reclaim waste directly from domestic sewage effluent [71]. The new Goreangab

Water Reclamation plant was built in 2002 and has been based on extensive experience, local research, and input from international experts to assure compliance to the strictest water qual- ity guidelines applied internationally [72]. The Resilience City Planning Framework (RCPF) is a complex phenomenon, non-deterministic, dynamic in structure, and uncertain in nature [73]. This context poses new opportunities for collaboration among public, private, civil insti- tutions and organizations on all levels. In addition, artificial recharge of aquifers implemented in the CoW provides another important lesson in groundwater abstraction and water management. The city supplies groundwater abstracted from municipal production boreholes, which is different from Harare, where water management is under the control of public entities, and water treatment and sup- ply is the sole mandate of the city council. In Lusaka on the other hand, water is managed by a commercial utility, which is a private company wholly owned by the local authority [74]. Sur- face and groundwater resources in Harare and Lusaka are dwindling due to increase in demand and unregulated abstraction. In Harare, drilling a borehole requires a permit from the country’s raw water regulators, the Zimbabwe National Water Authority (ZINWA) but they are poor regulators and enforcers of this piece of legislation. As such individuals across Harare have drilled boreholes in their residences, in a similar way to Lusaka. In Lusaka, borehole dril- ling has only recently been regulated by the Water Resources Management Agency

(WARMA), which issues permits for abstraction. The Water Resources Management Act Number 21 of 2011 requires all borehole owners to register their boreholes at a fee. This is being done in order to take stock of the number of boreholes and to monitor the abstraction levels of groundwater, which is at risk of contamination and depletion in Lusaka. In contrast, in Windhoek, permission for borehole abstraction is granted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry (MAWF), and the city has created an efficient groundwater abstraction and recharge system where water can be artificially recharged into city aquifers for storage pur- poses, since the evaporation rates are very high. The same water is treated to potable water standards before it is pumped into permissible boreholes in a scheme known as the Windhoek Managed Aquifer Recharge Scheme, providing a centralized borehole system which is easier to monitor and maintain; which again provides a good case of water management that other cit- ies can learn from. City learning in southern Africa PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227915 January 24, 2020 15 / 25

Another interesting difference was noted in water governance structures in Windhoek City which not only buys water from Namibia Water Corporation (NamWater), but also energy from NamPower and then sells these as services to residents but under government regulated rates. In contrast, ZINWA is responsible for overall management of all raw water forms in Zimbabwe including all cities. Harare City is solely responsible for the treatment, supply and therefore charging and collection of rates for potable water and purchases water from the national distributor, then redistributes at a slightly higher cost as part of the revenue collection. The Zambian situation presents a different scenario where water in Lusaka is supplied by a Commercial Utility (CU)- Lusaka Water and Sewerage Company (LWSC), which was created in 1988 although it only started functioning in 1990. Initially, water was supplied by the local authority which lacked capacity and could not attract professionals. The CU is responsible for the abstraction (from both surface and ground sources), bulk transportation, treatment and supply of water for which it charges fees under a regulated tariff structure Water reforms of 1997 created the National Water and Sanitation Council (NWASCO), which regulates the pro- vision of water supply and sanitation services country wide. NWASCO regulates tariffs there- fore the CU is not able to have its own fee structure for water. Currently, Lusaka city cannot be said to have inadequate water, but the growing population

and the expansion of unplanned settlements compound the difficulties currently encountered in the provision of water and sanitation services. Currently, only about 30% of the city is sup- plied with water by LWSC, which is serviced by a sewer network. Ninety percent (90%) of unplanned households use pit latrine toilets; 3% have no toilet facilities and use bush toilets. Pit latrines are shared among several households, and this reduces the latrine’s life span and because of inaccessibility to the unplanned settlements suction tankers cannot empty the majority of pit latrines. Local boreholes are unprotected, resulting in severe health risks when there is contamination from pit latrines. City climate integration and planning. Durban is at the advanced stages of climate inte- gration and mainstreaming into municipal planning and implementation of high provides a good case and practice that can be adopted by it. This was achieved through, political commit- ment and oversight, and climate champions in various line departments within the city. Mather et al. [75] attribute the success in Durban to the development of high-level technical expertise within the municipality as well as advocacy by political and technical champions, and broad based and appropriate communication with stakeholders. In contrast, the city of Wind- hoek has an environment desk which deals with issues to do with water reclamation and recy- cling and use of wastewater for green spaces are imminent. While Harare Municipality has a

full department in charge of waste management, the authority has no department that deals with climate related issues, which exposes the authority when it comes to environmental pro- tection and management. In addition, although climate change adaptation strategies are being crafted at the national level in Zimbabwe through the former Ministry of Environment, Water and Climate (MoEWC), climate change adaptation has received minimum attention at the local level (Harare City Council) with no adaptation strategies in place and like most cities a department dedicated to climate and environmental issues is imminent [76]. Lessons on mainstreaming climate adaptation can be applied from the CoW that is in the process of finalizing development and approval of the Integrated City Strategy and Action Plan on climate change bearing witness of a good example of cascading the national policy on climate change to city level. Climate integration and adaptation in Durban is done in two ways: firstly, through the Durban Climate Change Strategy (DCCS), which lays out a city-wide approach to address ten interrelated climate change themes (Water, Sea level rise, Biodiversity, Food security, Health, Energy, Waste and Pollution, Transport, Economic development, and Knowledge Generation and Understanding). This mainstreaming is overseen politically by the City learning in southern Africa PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227915 January 24, 2020 16 / 25

Municipal Climate Change Committee, and administratively by the Disaster Management Advisory Forum’s Municipal Adaptation Planning Technical Task Team [77]. Secondly, the Durban Adaptation Charter (DAC) is an international agreement that com- mits local governments to local climate action in their jurisdiction. The DAC was launched at COP17 hosted in Durban in December 2011. In Durban, the DAC is implemented through the maintenance and advancing of the Central KwaZulu-Natal Climate Change Compact [77], which is a partnership between Durban and its surrounding local and district municipalities to collaboratively address climate change at a regional scale in an integrated fashion [77]. The DAC has coined this method as the Hub and Compact approach. The climate adaptation work of eThekwini Municipality is coordinated under the Municipal Climate Protection Pro- gramme, by the Climate Protection Branch of the Environmental Planning and Climate Pro- tection Department. Discussion Key issues in the urban ecosystems Water and energy vulnerability and risk are significant issues for the cities except for Durban. For instance, the city of Harare particularly is dependent on a polluted source of water (Lake Chivero) and the Kariba Dam along the Zambezi River for its electricity. In addition, the city has limited capacity to deal with increased wastewater as the infrastructure has not been ade- quately expanded to accommodate the population expansion [66]; [78]; [79]. This resonates with the fact that, water stress is likely to adversely impact public health, water availability,

energy, forestry and biodiversity, rangelands, human settlements and tourism [62]; [3]; [70]. Recently (2019), long power cuts, especially in Lusaka and Harare, have been the order of the day with those who can afford to turning to alternative sources such as liquid gas, generators and solar power while the poor use cheaper sources of energy such as wood and kerosene [66]; [67]. Energy issues conversely affect potable water supply as water treatment processes and the pumping supply systems are reliant on electricity. Although the quantity and quality of water supply are central to water security [62]; [63]; [69], water governance has a central role in the issue of water security. While urban agriculture supplements the city’s food demand, it has implications on water demand given that agricul- ture production and horticulture draws significant amounts of water for irrigation [63]; [62]. Increased populations have found homes in informal settlements, which tend to have poor quality infrastructure and amenities such as roads, electricity, water, sanitation and good trans- port [63]. For all the cities, there is tacit recognition that complexity of issues threatening water secu- rity in the region cannot be addressed by any one actor or one sector alone and therefore, col- lective leadership is required. An innovative, multi-stakeholder approach to collaboration at all levels, now enshrined in Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 17, is emerging whereby partners increased their understanding of water risks, raise awareness of these risks and advo-

cate for change, and harmonize resources and capacities to engage in effective, on-the-ground projects. For the city of Lusaka, the water security initiative is a case in point and in Windhoek the efficacious water reclamation systems that are governed by a PPP resonate the importance of collaboration. City learning points Water and waste issues. The lessons and best practices of water conservation from the CoW are relevant to other FRACTAL cities such as Cape Town, Harare, Johannesburg and Lusaka, which are in the arid belt of the region and therefore susceptible to drought episodes City learning in southern Africa PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227915 January 24, 2020 17 / 25

ern Africa. One lesson learnt through the exchange visits was how to address the challenge of informal settlements vis-à-vis building resilience in the cities as low-income households and informal households often located in unsuitable areas are most vulnerable to the compounding effects of both non-climatic and climate risks such as floods in Lusaka. The exchange visit brought out the advantages existing in CoW where temporary unplanned and illegal structures are constructed using corrugated iron sheets. These can easily be removed or moved for upgrading and planning given that most of these settlements are situated in unsuitable land. A lesson for other southern African and African cities on dealing with informal settlements that mushroom as a result of population expansion and urbanization and the subsequent fail- ure of service delivery can be drawn from Harare and Zimbabwe. Formalisation of informal settlements and building initiatives in Harare may provide lessons to other African cities that have problems with informal settlements and associated risks such as the famous Kibera in Nairobi, partially informal Khayelitsha township in Cape Town, and in Dar es Salaam that has an informal settlement areal coverage of 70% [83] comparable to Lusaka and to a lesser extent, Windhoek and Durban. Energy issues. The City of Windhoek provides an exceptional case as the function of energy provision is designated at city level, whereas in most African countries the energy pro- vider is often a public entity at national level. However, most southern African countries and

indeed cities, which are large consumers of energy, rely on hydropower energy except for South Africa, and Botswana which mostly rely on fossil fuels, and coal in particular [84]. There is controversy over the continued use of coal in the region (with 90% of South Africa’s energy source being coal-powered), given its contribution to CO2 and greenhouse gases and ulti- mately global warming. We found comparable efforts towards use of renewable energy sources for Harare and Windhoek with projects such as the Southern African Solar Training and Dem- onstration Initiative (SOLTRAIN) and the developments at the SADC Centre for Renewable Energy and Efficiency (SACREE) that both Namibia and Zimbabwe are party to. Water governance. Each city has taken up a water governance system which appears to be feasible and workable. There are several multiple roles of city authorities in governance which influence resilience. These include the role cities play as regulators, as taxation and licensing authorities; as strategic land-use planners and developers; consumers and providers of goods and services. This makes local authorities exceptionally well positioned to lead and City learning in southern Africa PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227915 January 24, 2020 18 / 25

influence climate adaptation interventions and stimulate behaviour change among citizens and businesses. Adaptation measures are needed in this and many cities in the region given projections of population exponential population growth. The differing contexts of water governance demonstrated for the four cities of Harare, Windhoek, Lusaka and Durban are an example of the use of diverse solutions within African cities. Often, one size fits all solutions are advocated for and sometimes even funded for Africa, forgetting the different contextual realities. However, we acknowledge that there is still room for cities to learn from each other on implementation in order to improve on water service delivery and water resource management. Multiple actors, often through partnership, tend to intervene in urban climate change governance [81]; [82]. This suggests the use of new frame- works such as the Resilience City Planning Framework (RCPF), which is a network of inter- linked multidisciplinary concepts. At the same time, governance systems in the cities need to be transparent, flexible, have integration and monitoring systems, and embrace continual learning and knowledge sharing to increase the likelihood of transformational adaptation. City climate integration and planning. By engaging in compact partnerships for Durban with neighbouring municipalities, learning, resources and skills are shared and an integrated response to climate change has been developed in this city-region. This increases the scale at

which work is done, often encapsulating whole catchments and substantially increasing the number of benefiting city-region residents. Lessons and good practice therefore emanated from Durban in the way in which climate change is integrated in planning processes and cli- mate adaptation is facilitated. The structures and approaches in Durban present learning point as such efforts of integrating climate action into policy can be replicated in other southern African cities. It is worth noting though that similar efforts such as the development of Wind- hoek’s climate change response strategy; Lusaka’s water security initiative and some engage- ments on improving planning and mainstreaming national and transformative adaptation plans at the city level in Harare are all initiatives that have been borne partly from the FRAC- TAL engagements and from the learning experiences of the city exchanges. Conclusion Cities can be regarded as complex urban ecosystems, which, like other types of ecosystems, are threatened by climate change. Additionally, southern African cities face multiple stressors and complex challenges. As with natural ecosystems, resilience against climate change lies firstly in the healthy functioning of the city and secondly in the ability of the city to adapt to changes. A crucial element in adapting is having the ability to learn and implement best practices, often from other cities facing similar challenges. As indicated in this paper, some cities have come up with innovative ways of tackling challenges such as water insecurity, informal settlements

and climate change. These provide learning points for other cities that are grappling with cli- mate change and other, similar developmental issues, also bearing in mind that context mat- ters. In this paper we identified five elements (called ‘city learning points’) of a city that need to be considered when grappling with and building resilience to climate change impacts in south- ern African cities. Among these learning points are the issue of public-private partnerships, which southern African cities can embrace in dealing with issues such as water scarcity and management issues and where great strides in improving water service delivery to the city resi- dents through water reclamation, have been made in the case of the City of Windhoek. This has placed the city on a success trajectory, which promises to lessen water availability issues that are compounded by climatic risks. Another learning point was that community engagement and inclusion to deal more suc- cessfully with solid waste allows for local participation and green job creation in cities as City learning in southern Africa PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227915 January 24, 2020 19 / 25

evidenced by Durban and Lusaka. Community engagement ensures better understanding of the context as the solutions are made together ‘with’ rather than ‘for’ the people on the ground and who are affected by the day to day challenges. There is, however, evidence of the need for continued capacity building and improvement of the model used to implement such approaches such as in Harare’s clean up campaigns. One other critical learning point is on decisive leadership in dealing with informal settlements as exemplified by Harare. Intolerance of informal settlements and upgrading of these settlements, are strategies that promise to address criminality and disease in the low-income areas of the cities, which other cities can emulate and implement to the extent possible. Lastly, as highlighted in Durban, development and approval of city strategies and action plans on climate change adaptation provide an opportunity for cities to integrate climate change in planning processes and cascade national policies to the city level for the benefit of city residents. Mainstreaming of climate change also directly or indirectly addresses other developmental challenges such as biodiversity loss and water security. We conclude that the evidence of efforts towards environmental protection, improved urban amenities and infrastructure and ultimately service delivery in the southern African cit- ies studied gives an indication that to a large extent, there is scope for these cities to learn from each other to build and develop resilience. Therefore, city to city learning provides a useful

platform for the exchange and uptake of ideas, practices and strategies to enhance the resil- ience of urban ecosystems particularly across regions such as southern Africa where similar socio-environmental issues are encountered. These lessons can certainly be useful for similar cities and regions. Supporting information S1 File. Windhoek-Lusaka city learning exchange questionnaire. (DOC) S2 File. Household questionnaire: Lusaka START GEC; flood occurrence, impacts and response at household level. (DOC) S3 File. Lusaka START GEC household questionnaire. (DOC) S4 File. Lusaka GEC key informants interview guide. (DOC) S5 File. Lusaka GEC focus group discussion guide. (DOC) S6 File. Harare GEC household questionnaire. (DOC) S7 File. Harare START GEC interview guide for the stakeholders. (DOC) S8 File. Agenda for FRACTAL Harare Team exchange visit, Windhoek, Namibia. (DOC) S9 File. Agenda for Harare FRACTAL Team exchange visit, Lusaka, Zambia. (DOC) City learning in southern Africa PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227915 January 24, 2020 20 / 25

S10 File. Lusaka-Windhoek visiting agenda. (DOC) Acknowledgments The work described herein is from project activities conducted under the Future Resilience for African CiTies and Lands (FRACTAL) program. An extensive review of the manuscript was provided by Lindsey Jones of the Overseas Development Institute (London) and Elizabeth Daniels, who at that time was based at the Stockholm Environmental Institute in Oxford. Author Contributions Conceptualization: Mzime R. Ndebele-Murisa. Data curation: Mzime R. Ndebele-Murisa, Chipo P. Mubaya, Rudo Mamombe. Formal analysis: Mzime R. Ndebele-Murisa, Chipo P. Mubaya, Rudo Mamombe, Kornelia Iipinge, Wilma Nchito. Funding acquisition: Mzime R. Ndebele-Murisa, Wilma Nchito, John K. Mfune, Gilbert Siame. Investigation: Mzime R. Ndebele-Murisa, Chipo P. Mubaya, Rudo Mamombe, Kornelia Iipinge, Wilma Nchito, Gilbert Siame, Brenda Mwalukanga. Methodology: Mzime R. Ndebele-Murisa, Chipo P. Mubaya, Lulu Pretorius, Kornelia Iipinge, Wilma Nchito, John K. Mfune. Project administration: Mzime R. Ndebele-Murisa, Chipo P. Mubaya, Wilma Nchito, John K. Mfune, Gilbert Siame. Resources: Mzime R. Ndebele-Murisa, Chipo P. Mubaya. Supervision: Mzime R. Ndebele-Murisa, Chipo P. Mubaya, John K. Mfune, Gilbert Siame. Validation: Mzime R. Ndebele-Murisa, Chipo P. Mubaya, Lulu Pretorius, Wilma Nchito. Visualization: Chipo P. Mubaya, Lulu Pretorius. Writing – original draft: Mzime R. Ndebele-Murisa, Chipo P. Mubaya, Lulu Pretorius, Rudo Mamombe, Kornelia Iipinge. Writing – review & editing: Mzime R. Ndebele-Murisa, Chipo P. Mubaya, Lulu Pretorius,

Wilma Nchito, John K. Mfune, Gilbert Siame, Brenda Mwalukanga. References 1. Broto VC, Boyd E, Ensor J. Participatory urban planning for climate change adaptation in coastal cities: lessons from a pilot experience in Maputo. Mozambique Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainabil- ity. 2015; 13:11–18. 2. Childers D, Cadenasso M, Grove J, Marshall V, Mcgrath B, Pickett S. An ecology for cities: A transfor- mational nexus of design and ecology to advance climate change resilience and urban sustainability. Sustainability. 2015; 7(4):3774–3791. 3. Muchadenyika D. Slum upgrading and inclusive municipal governance in Harare, Zimbabwe: New per- spectives for the urban poor. Habitat International. 2015; 48:1–10. 4. Phiri A. Risks of domestic underground water sources in informal settlements in Kabwe- Zambia. Envi- ronment & Pollution. 2016; 5:1–14. 5. Muchadenyika D, Williams JJ. Politics and the practice of planning: The case of Zimbabwean cities. Cit- ies. 2017; 63:33–40. City learning in southern Africa PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227915 January 24, 2020 21 / 25

6. Teye J.K. Environmental change and migration in Africa. In, Anarfi JK, Kwasi J, Sulemana A, Anamzoya A, Adiku G. Migration in a Globalizing World: Perspectives from Ghana. 2018. Pp 97–115. 7. Ziervogel G. Building transformative capacity for adaptation planning and implementation that works for the urban poor: Insights from South. Africa AMBIO A Journal of the Human Environment. 2019; 48(5):494–506. 8. Muller M. Adapting to climate change: water management for urban resilience. Environment and Urban- ization. 2007; 19(1):99–113. 9. Sorensen P. The chronic water shortage in Cape Town and survival strategies. International Journal of Environmental Studies. 2017; 74(4):515–527. 10. Fauchereau N, Trzaska S, Rouault M, Richard Y. Rainfall Variability and Changes in Southern Africa during the 20th Century in the Global Warming Context. Natural Hazards; 2003; 29(3):139–154. 11. Pinto I, Lennard C, Tadross M. Evaluation and projections of extreme precipitation over southern Africa from two CORDEX models. Climatic Change. 2016; 135:655–668. 12. Maure GA, Pinto I, Ndebele-Murisa MR, Muthige M, Lennard C, Nikulin G, et al. The southern African climate under 1.5 and 2C of global warming as simulated by CORDEX models. Environmental Research Letters. 2018. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aab190. 13. Corfee-Morlot J, Kamal-Chaoui L, Donovan MG, Cochran I, Robert A, Teasdale PJ. Cities, climate change and multilevel governance; 2009. OECD Environmental Working Papers N˚ 14, 2009, OECD publishing, OECD.

14. U¨ rge-Vorsatz D, Rosenzweig C, Dawson RJ, Rodriguez RS, Bai X, Barau AS, et al. Locking in positive climate responses in cities. Nature Climate Change. 2018; 8(3):174–177. 15. Campbell L. Stepping back: understanding cites and their systems. ALNAP Working Paper. 2016. 16. Bai X. Future Earth Urban Knowledge Action Network; 2018. http://bit.ly/2PX3kL4. 17. Campbell L. Stepping back: Understanding cities and their systems ALNAP; 2016. https://www.alnap. org/help-library/stepping-back-understanding-cities-and-their-systems. 18. Bigio A. Cities and climate change. In: Kreimer A, Arnold M, Carlin A, editors. Building Safer Cities: The Future of Disaster Risk. No3. Disaster Risk management Series. Washington DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank; 2003. p. 91–100. http://documents. worldbank.org/curated/en/584631468779951316/pdf/272110PAPER0Building0safer0cities.pdf. 19. Roberts R, Boon R, Diederichs N, et al. Exploring ecosystem-based adaptation in Durban, South Africa: “learning-by-doing” at the local government coal face. Environment and Urbanization. 2012; 24(1):167– 195. 20. Pelling M, O’Brien K, Matyas D. Adaptation and transformation. Climatic Change 2014; 133:113–127. 21. Ziervogel G, Cowen A, Ziniades J. Moving from adaptive to transformative capacity: Building founda- tions for inclusive, thriving, and regenerative urban settlements. Sustainability (Switzerland). 2016; 8(9). 22. Campbell T. Beyond Smart cities: How cities network, learn, and innovate. New York: Earthscan; 2012.

23. Moodley S. Defining city-to-city learning in southern Africa: Exploring practitioner sensitivities in the knowledge transfer process. Habitat International. 2019; 85:34–40. 24. Araos M, Berrang-Ford L, Ford JD, Austin SE, Biesbroek R, Lesnikowski A. Climate change adaptation planning in large cities: A systematic global assessment. Environmental Science & Policy. 2016; 66:375–382. 25. Carmin J, Anguelovski I, Roberts D. Urban climate adaptation in the global south: planning in an emerg- ing policy domain. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 2012; 32(1):18–32. 26. Roberts D, O’Donoghue S. Urban environmental challenges and climate change action in Durban, South Africa. Environment and Urbanization, 2013; 25(2):299–319. 27. Simon D, Leck H. Understanding climate adaptation and transformation challenges in African cities. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 2015; 13:109–116. 28. Jasanoff S. The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Harvard University Press; 2009. http:// www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674300620. 29. Scott D, Jack C. Telling stories: A multi-disciplinary co-production device? 2017. http://www.csag.uct. ac.za/2017/02/22/stories-a-multi-disciplinary-co-production-device/. 30. Shepherd TG, Boyd E, Calel RA. Storylines: An alternative approach to representing uncertainty in physical aspects of climate change. Climatic change. 2018; 151:555–571. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10584-018-2317-9 PMID: 30880852 31. Mauser W, Klepper G, Rice M, Schmalzbauer BS, Hackmann H, Leemans R, et al. Transdisciplinary

global change research: the co-creation of knowledge for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmen- tal Sustainability. 2013; 5(3-):420431. City learning in southern Africa PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227915 January 24, 2020 22 / 25

32. Arrighi A, Koelle B, Besa MC, Spires M, Kavonic J, Scott D, et al. Dialogue for decision-making: unpack- ing the City Learning Lab approach; 2016. Working Paper Series No. 7. Red Cross/Red Crescent Cli- mate Centre. 33. Cundill G, Harvey B, Tebboth M, Cochrane L, Currie-Alder B, Vincent K, et al. Large-scale transdisci- plinary collaboration for adaptation research: Challenges and insights. Global Challenges. 2018; 3(4):1700132. PMID: 31565370 34. Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, et al. Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science. 2012; 7(1):25–43. 35. Brandt P, Ernst A, Gralla F, Luederitz C, Lang DJ, Newig J, et al. A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecological Economics. 2013; 92:1–15. 36. von Wehrden H, Guimarães MH, Bina O, Varanda M, Lang DJ, John B, et al. Interdisciplinary and trans- disciplinary research: finding the common ground of multi-faceted concepts. Sustainability Science. 2019; 14(3):875–888. 37. Thompson MA, Owen S, Lindsay JM, Leonard GS, Cronin SJ. Scientist and stakeholder perspectives of transdisciplinary research: Early attitudes, expectations, and tensions. Environmental Science and Policy. 2017; 74:30–39. 38. Klenk N, Fiume A, Meehan K, Gibbes C. Local knowledge in climate adaptation research: Moving knowledge frameworks from extraction to co-production. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change. 2017; 8(5):475–475.

39. Polk M. Transdisciplinary co-production: Designing and testing a transdisciplinary research framework for societal problem solving. Futures. 2015; 65:110–122. 40. Howarth C. Telling stories on climate change and low carbon futures: Framing narratives around the UKs fifth Carbon Budget. Journal of Energy Research and Social Science. 2017; 31:295–302. 41. Donker F, Howarth C, Ebhuoma E, Daly M, Vaughan C, Pretorius L, et al. Climate services and commu- nication for development: The role of early career researchers in advancing the debate. Environmental Communication. 2019; 13:561–566. 42. Taylor A, Scott D, Steynor A, Mcclure A. Transdisciplinarity, Co-Production and Co-Exploration: Inte- grating Knowledge across Science, Policy and Practice in FRACTAL; FRACTAL Working Paper; 2016. 43. Snyder WM, Wenger E. Our world as a learning system: a communities of practice approach. In: Black- more C, editor. Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice. Dordrecht: Springer; 2010. 44. Lee T, Meene SVD. Who teaches and who learns? Policy learning through the C40 cities climate net- work. Policy Sciences. 2012; 45(3):199–220. 45. Krause RM. An assessment of the impact that participation in local climate networks has on cities imple- mentation of climate, energy, and transportation policies. Review of Policy Research. 2012; 29(5):585– 604. 46. Zeppel H. The ICLEI Cities for Climate Protection programme: local government networks in urban cli- mate governance. In: Climate Change and Global Policy Regimes. Palgrave Macmillan; 2013. p. 217– 231.

47. Wenger E. Communities of practice and social learning systems: the career of a concept. Social learn- ing systems and communities of practice; 2010. 48. Tschakert P, Dietrich KA. Anticipatory learning for climate change adaptation and resilience. Ecology and society. 2010; 15(2):11–11. 49. Jones L, Harvey B, Cochrane L. Designing the next generation of climate adaptation research for devel- opment. Regional Environmental Change. 2018; 18:1553–1561. 50. Steyaert P, Jiggins J. Governance of complex environmental situations through social learning: a syn- thesis of SLIMs lessons for research, policy and practice. Environmental Science & Policy. 2007; 10(6):575–586. 51. Ziervogel G, Taylor A. Feeling stressed: integrating climate adaptation with other priorities in South Africa. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development; 2008. 52. Bandura A. Social Learning Theory. New York, USA: General Learning Press; 1971. 53. Rendell L, Fogarty L, Hoppitt WJE, Morgan TJH, Webster MM, Laland KN. Cognitive culture: theoretical and empirical insights into social learning strategies. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2011; 15:68–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.12.002 PMID: 21215677 54. Weissberg RP, Cascarino J. Academic learning and social-emotional learning national priority. Phi Delta Kappan. 2013; 95(2):8–13. 55. Miller TR, Wiek A, Sarewitz D, Robinson J, Olsson L, Kriebel D, et al. The future of sustainability sci- ence: a solutions-oriented research agenda. Sustainability Science. 2014; 9(2):239–246. City learning in southern Africa

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227915 January 24, 2020 23 / 25

56. FRACTAL Praxis: Developing concepts through practice. Presentation at FRACTAL write shop, Cape Town; 2018. 57. Steynor A, Padgham J, Jack C, Hewitson B, Lennard C. Co-exploratory climate risk workshops: Experi- ences from urban Africa. Climate Risk Management. 2016; 13:95–102. 58. Stern E, Stame E, Mayne J, Forss K, Davies, R and Befani B. Broadening the range of designs and methods for impact evaluations. Report of a study commissioned by the Department for International Development;. 2012. https://www.oecd.org/derec/50399683.pdf. 59. Goodrick D. Comparative case studies: Methodological briefs- Impact Evaluation No. 9; 2014. https:// www.unicef-irc.org/publications/754-comparative-case-studies-methodological-briefs-impact- evaluation-no-9.html.60. 60. Nhapi I. Inventory of water management practices in Harare. Zimbabwe Water and Environment Jour- nal. 2008; 22(1):54–63. 61. Weber B, Mendelsohn J. Informal settlements in Namibia: their nature and growth Exploring ways to make Namibian urban development more socially just and inclusive. NEC, GIZ. John Meinert Printing. 2017;(1). 62. Habitat UN. Zambia: Lusaka Urban Profile. Nairobi: UNON, Publishing Services Section; 2007. 63. Government of the Republic of Zambia (GRZ), Ministry of Local Government M, Lusaka City Council (LCC). Assessment of Flood Risk for Mazyopa Settlement arising from Improvements for Bombay and Lumumba drain. Lusaka Water Supply and Sanitation and Drainage (LWSSD) Project; 2013. http:// www.mcaz.gov.zm/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/MCC_DDTD_Constructability-Report_Mazyopa- Drainage.pdf.

64. Nchito WS, Siame G, Nyanga P, Mushili B, Mwalukanga B. Understanding Interactions Between Urban Floods, Municipal Solid Waste and Urban Planning in The Lusaka City-Region. Final Project Report for 2016 START Grants for Global Change; 2018. 65. Dian S. What Cape Town can learn from Windhoek on surviving drought; 2017. http://theconversation. com/what-cape-town-can-learn-from-windhoek-on-surviving-droughts-79281. 66. Sithole A, Goredema B. Building in Wetlands to Meet the Housing Demand and Urban Growth in Harare. International Journal of Humanities and Social Sci. 2013.Special Issue:193–201. 67. Mapimhidze R. Urban wetlands under Siege; 2014. https://www.newsday.co.zw/2014/02/18/ urbanwetlandssiege/. 68. Tendaupenyu I. Role of wetlands in the self-purification of streams using the Mukuvisi River (Harare, Zimbabwe) as a case study; 2002. MSc thesis, University of Zimbabwe. 69. Williams DS, Costa M, Celliers L, Sutherland C. Informal Settlements and Flooding: Identifying Strengths and Weaknesses in Local Governance for Water Management; 2018. 70. World Economic Forum (2019). South Africa Energy Transition Index 2019 Edition. http://reports. weforum.org/fostering-effective-energy-transition-2019/energy-transition-index/country-scorecards/ #economy=ZAF. 71. Lafforgue M, Lenouvel V. Closing the urban water loop: lessons from Singapore and Windhoek. Envi- ronmental Science: Water Research & Technology. 2015; 1(5):622–631. 72. Haarhoff J, Merwe BVD. Twenty-five years of wastewater reclamation in Windhoek. Namibia Water Sci- ence and Technology. 1996; 33:25–35.

73. ARUP, Rockefeller Foundation. City resilience framework; 2015. Arup, London. https://assets. rockefellerfoundation.org/app/uploads/20140410162455/City-Resilience-Framework-2015.pdf. 74. Kayaga S, Kadimba-Mwanamwambwa C. Bridging Zambia’s water service gap: NGO/community part- nerships. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Water Management. 2006; p. 3–3. 75. Mather A, Roberts D, Tooley G. Adaptation in Practise: Durban, South Africa. in K Otto-Zimmermann (editor), Resilient Cities: Cities and Adaptation to Climate Change. Proceedings of the Global Forum 2010, Local Sustainability Series Vol 1, pages 543−563. 76. Ndebele-Murisa MR, Mubaya CP. Decision making and climate resilience in the water sector of Harare. Policy Brief. 2019. 77. eThekwini Municipality. Durban Climate Change Strategy; 2014. https://www.bbhub.io/mayors/sites/ 14/2015/06/Durban-Action-Plan.pdf. 78. Ndunguru MG, Hoko Z. Assessment of water loss in Harare. Zimbabwe Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development. 2016; 6(4):519–533. 79. Chirisa I, Bandauko E, Matamanda A, Mandisvika G. Decentralized domestic wastewater systems in developing countries: the case study of Harare (Zimbabwe). 80. Lykke AM, Barfod AS, Svendsen GT, Greve M, Svenning JC. Climate change mitigation by carbon stocking: The case of semi-arid West Africa. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2009; 8(1). City learning in southern Africa PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227915 January 24, 2020 24 / 25

81. Broto VC, Bulkeley H. A survey of urban climate change experiments in 100 cities. Global Environmen- tal Change. 2013; 23(1):92–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.07.005 PMID: 23805029 82. Jabareen Y. Planning the resilient city: Concepts and strategies for coping with climate change and environmental risk. Cities. 2013; 31:220–229. 83. Mubaya CP, Mutopo P, Ndebele-Murisa MR. Local governance, climate risk and everyday vulnerability in Dar es Salaam. Untamed Urbanisms; 2015. Routledge. 134–149. Routledge. Series: Advances in Regional Economics, Science and Policy. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon and New York. 84. Mukheibir P. Possible climate change impacts on large hydroelectricity schemes in Southern Africa. Journal of Energy in Southern Africa. 2007; 18(1):4–9. City learning in southern Africa PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227915 January 24, 2020 25 / 25